Discovery of the West Nile Virus in the tri-state metropolitan area in 1999, and more particularly the resulting concerns of public health officials over the possibilities of the spread of such disease regionally, together with its life-threatening capability, spurred a broad resurgence in the study, surveillance and control of the populations of disease-carrying insects in the Northeast United States, especially mosquitoes. The World Trade Center tragedy served to heightened concerns in such geographical area, particularly when viewed in the light of one West Nile theory that introduction of such disease into the greater New York area may not have been accidental or naturally caused.
Historically, the “front line” of mosquito surveillance, and therefore control, has principally taken the form of fieldwork, in which all four metamorphic forms of the mosquito (i.e., egg, larvae & pupa [all waterborne] and adult [airborne]) are observed and collected/captured. Of these, surveillance and treatment/control primarily are concerned with the larval and adult forms. The former is highly practical, inasmuch as mosquito larvae are almost exclusively found in standing water, and yet are mobile and thus readily subject to collection via the taking of random water samples, particularly inasmuch as they must come to the surface of the water to breath. The adult forms of mosquito are typically gathered in traps designed for flying insects, and therefrom researchers can learn inter alia of the types of species, their range and migration patterns and many other facts about these potentially dangerous airborne pests.
Whereas, the traps for capturing adult mosquitoes are most often installed/implemented on dry land in readily accessible locations, this, unfortunately, cannot be said in many cases with regard to studies, surveillance and treatment/control concerning mosquito larvae, because standing water often is located in remote places and/or in situations that pose great difficulty in terms of physical accessibility. In fact the researcher or field operative has to contend with a very broad range of breeding habitats both natural, e.g., tree holes and hollowed trunks, swampy areas, etc., and man made, such as partially filled swimming pools, sewer treatment plant ponds, and “junk yard” articles such as rimless automobile tires. It is an often overlooked point, too, that determination of the absence of targeted pests is as important as their presence, in terms of integrated pest management, particularly since the presence or absence of targeted pests constitutes the first crucial step in determining whether control measures are to be brought to bear or not.
A most typical and perplexing example of environmental concern the researcher or field operative faces is the man-made culvert or catch basin. These devices are usually located along our roads, where they typically have curb openings, but they also may be employed as a solution for flood control and/or off-road rainwater accumulation, and can, therefore, be found in fields (such as football or soccer fields) and other areas away/remote from our roadbeds, with no openings other than the orifices found in the heavy metal grates forming the only exposed part thereof.
Sampling of the various standing water sources typically takes the form of obtaining or collecting a water sample, and there transferring the sample to a container for transport to lab facilities. The objective, of course, is to capture in the samples taken a number of the mosquito larvae present in that source of water. Accordingly, the larger the sample the greater the likelihood of obtaining an appreciable number of larvae, and the less attempts at collection required to obtain the desired full sample volume.
Of the considerable number of challenges facing the field researcher/operative, catch basins and culverts present a particularly perplexing problem, primarily because of the very restricted access to the water source presented by the physical structure of the environment defining such “sources” of standing water, or at least access thereto. In most cases, the only practical means of access to the water in a catch basin is through its very heavy, “perforated” metal grate, for it is most often the case that no practical means are available to the field personnel to lift the grates and reset them when done, especially when the basin is located well “off-road”. Such an exercise would also be very time consuming and potentially harmful to the field personnel and others if not properly and carefully undertaken. Adding to the difficulties field personnel typically face is the fact that the surface of the water can easily be as much as six to eight (or more) feet below the grate, and at times is not situated directly below the grate. Thus, even with a curb opening, the standing water in the typical road catch basin is most often not readily accessible, in that with current devices, field personnel are forced to assume a prone position in attempting to reach the water, which can be dangerous from the standpoints of traffic and the heat of the pavement and metal grate.
Whereas, a mosquito might consider the holes or openings in the grates equivalent to super highways in terms of inconsequential impediment to their passage in and out of the standing water in a catch basin, field personnel are faced with the task of trying to obtain a sizable larvae-populated water sample, in a single attempt, potentially 6-8 (or more) feet below grate level, often blindly, and at significant angle with respect to the plane of the grate, solely through the highly restricting holes or openings in the grate. Studies of various catch basin grates reveal the openings are typically somewhat elongated and either substantially rectangular or oval/oblong in shape (though occasionally the openings are found to be substantially square), with the dimensions of the standard holes being as little as an inch (square or in cross-sectional dimension), and as little as approximately 2½ inches in longitudinal dimension for the elongated openings. What is most important is the fact that field researchers cannot realistically avoid having to deal with the aforementioned extremely limiting conditions regarding physical access in such environments.
Actual conditions typically encountered have the added complexity that the subject water source contains various kinds of debris, both man-made and natural. This adds measurably to the difficulties in collecting the water samples, given that such debris usually requires some circumnavigation, which in turn requires added flexibility of operation as directed or controlled from the distal or remote end of one's means of sample collection.
Because of the physical factors involved with catch basins, including the water surface being several feet below the grate, the gathering of water samples with an industry standard dipper (i.e., a twelve fluid ounce hard plastic cup at the end of a fixed-length [e.g., typically 3 feet] dowel or other handle) under such conditions frequently requires the field researcher to lie prostrate on his or her stomach in an attempt to simply reach the water for sampling, through the curb opening if/when there is one. Because there is no uniformity regarding the depth of culverts and catch basins (nor indeed the dimensions of the grate's holes), one can readily encounter instances where the standing water is well out of reach to the standard “dipper” arrangement. Also, in those cases where much if not substantially all the water is located other than directly below the grate, the dimensions of the grate holes tend to severely limit or curtail the angle at which one can utilize the accessing means of any appreciable length, such as a pole, to reach “off-line” standing water sources.
The use of pump-and-hose mechanisms presents its own set of problems beyond what the limiting environment provides. A pump-hose arrangement typically has problems in directivity as to the operative or suction end of the typical hose, and is prone to clogging with regard to debris present in the water source. Electrical pumps are all too often not feasible in fieldwork. Battery-powered arrangements would provide a decidedly cumbersome apparatus to be carting around the terrain, and would likely have inadequate operational duration. Even a hand pump would prove largely impractical, in that the entire apparatus may require more than one operator and its use would tend to be overly time-consuming as well. Moreover, a pump arrangement might prove detrimental/destructive to the organisms sought to be surveilled.
The prior art, beginning with the standard dipper currently employed, as embodied in U.S. Pat. No. 4,061,038 (“038”), possesses one or more of the aforementioned shortcomings, and/or otherwise falls short of an ability to adequately deal with conditions the field operator is forced to contend with, particularly the highly restrictive catch basin and other limited-access environments the field operator must typically encounter.
Regarding the current standing-water sampling device depicted in the “038” reference, there is provided a pole-like handle, which, though of fixed (i.e., non-telescoping or otherwise extendable) length, can perhaps be presumed to vary from embodiment to embodiment. The operative end is a cup, with lips defining opposing pouring grooves. In transferring the collected sample to a transport container, the entire device must be turned substantially upside down to successfully complete transfer.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,442,970 (“970”) depicts a water-sampling device, having a telescopic pole, with the sample container attached to the one end of the pole. The sample container is demountably coupled to the pole not unlike the typical “snap-on” arrangement(s) employed in connection with swimming pool tools (such as a cleaning brush), though a 2nd embodiment shows the container could be attachable to the pole via a threaded mounting arrangement. The sample container is, however, taught to be substantially rigidly mounted to the pole, and, thus, like the aforementioned standard dipper, must be substantially turned upside down to effect transfer of the sample to the transport container. Moreover, there appears no solution in the “970” teachings for use in connection with highly restrictive or virtually inaccessible bodies of standing water, such as fully grated catch basins with small apertures. There appears to be some suggestion in the “970” reference, however, that sample containers of varying size can be utilized. Notwithstanding, the device of the “970” patent, as is the case with the above-mentioned prior art arrangements, is deemed unable to suggest any means at the operative end that is loosely or flexibly mountable. The “970” reference also fails to teach any implement being connected to the “handle” or distal end of the pole, such as other sample containers, or a securing/extending (extension) cord.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,601,324 (“324”) deals with a means of coupling a liquid sampling container relative to the pole or handle on other than a fixed basis. What is described is a rather elaborate clamping arrangement that encircles the container, whereby the container's diameter is effectively and disadvantageously enlarged considerably. This would tend to render the arrangement ineffective with regard to typical highly restrictive field environments herein contemplated. One portion of the clamping arrangement has a pivot that is attached to the pole. Thereby, the container's opening may be movable relative to the pole in a limited up-and-down arc, i.e., essentially in a single reversible angular direction. The arrangement also does not appear to allow the sample cup to remain upright when bringing the sample toward the inspector in the collection process and/or when transferring the sample to the collection/transport container. Thus, while some limited flexibility appears provided in connection with coupling the container to the pole, there is provided insufficient freedom of movement of the container relative to the pole needed for the operations and environments described. Overall, the complexity and unwieldiness of the pivoted clamping mechanism is unnecessary for, and would hinder, sampling under conditions the present invention was designed to overcome. In addition, securing the container to and releasing the container from the clamping means would require articulate hand movements that would make use largely intolerable in the field, e.g., time lost, polluted water, wearing gloves, etc.
Other arrangements are known to the prior art. However, as to those other arrangements and references for which specific awareness exists, none is deemed to advance the position of the prior art materially closer to the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,293,601 (“601”) teaches an extendable, i.e., telescoping, pole with a hook arrangement at the operative end and a resilient clip type arrangement at the handle end for attachment of the device to a pocket flap. U.S. Pat. No. 4,659,125 describes a telescopic pole having at its operative end a golf ball retriever/receptacle. U.S. Pat. No. 3,960,021 depicts a rod, curved into a handle at one end, and an annular collar fixed to the rod near the other end, for holding a container. This arrangement does not, however, appear to allow for skimming the body of water due to poor maneuverability with limited access constraint(s). Near the end of the handle is a means for removing/replacing the container cap without touching the cap, for sanitary purposes. U.S. Pat. No. 4,754,656 shows an elongated fixed (rather short) handle, to which is attached a cap, in breakaway fashion, with the cap in turn being “hinged” to the container via a plastic hinge. U.S. Pat. No. 5,902,940 illustrates an elaborate tubular sampling arrangement and container, for sampling in narrow wells or borings. U.S. Pat. No. 4,869,118 depicts an elaborate sampling arrangement having an elongated fixed pole/pipe through which there extends longitudinally a control shaft having a handle at the one end and a stopper at the other end. To the stopper end of the pole there is attached a container holder which places the container such that the stopper can be inserted into the opening of the container and retrieved to an “open-container” position via the remote handle. This arrangement appears to have been designed to sample at predetermined depth, and does not appear to allow for tipping of the container to e.g., collect in shallow water. Larval collection requires skimming the surface, as well as dunking for the organisms that have “gone to the bottom” after the water's surface was disturbed.